Brushing up on means and medians can help journalists

Everything I see points to the coming July 4 weekend signaling the absolute worst of our current travel nightmare, combining staffing shortages, slow regrowth after the pandemic, high energy prices, and raging inflation.

Of course, a large percentage of all travelers will be fine, and they will handle more expensive tickets and gas in the same way that people who REALLY want to see, say, the Colorado Avalanche hockey team play in person. Playoff tix were going for upward of $2,000 just a couple weeks ago. 

Life is full of choices, and for most Americans there is enough flexibility to spend more or less, depending on values and enthusiasm and desire. Holiday travel seems like a choice, though the urge to get out of town and check in with relatives... or simply hang out somewhere new or exciting or both is strong. 

A chance of delays and even cancellations is just enough to stop those eager to visit somewhere.

A recent study says the average American family spends 2.57 percent of its available income on gasoline each month, and recent price hikes have raised that percentage quite a bit compared to previous expectations. I have previously mentioned in this blog that every increase in gas per gallon of one dollar leads to about an additional $55 in monthly gas bills for average drivers.

But we know that "average" is sometimes not very helpful... and I would guess that the range of amounts spent on gas each month is quite large. I was surprised to find that Alabama drivers pile up way more miles each month than many other states. Many who live in dense metropolitan areas like New York City or Washington, D.C. simply don't pile up the miles, no matter how high or low gas prices get. 

I was thinking that we need to teach young journalists to more closely examine the terms "average" and "typical," and create discussions over which of the two measures is more useful.

Everything I found searching online depended on "average," or simply adding up all the miles driven and dividing the total number of driving family members into that number, and then multiplying the cost of gas. In theory, you could have a lot of drivers like Kathleen and me who fill up the tank once per month... maybe. You could have a select few drivers, like contractors for Uber, who might pile up ten thousand miles in a month. Computing the average of those diverse results gives a number that is WAY too high for some percentage of the population that doesn't drive all the time and WAY too low for ride share drivers.

And I'm not sure exactly what we learn from that average.

A "typical" driver might accumulate (I am making this up) 30 miles a day... or make it 100 miles a day... the point will be the same. If we can identify the "typical," we may get a more useful figure. This is the median in "stat talk," and the median is simply the number that sits exactly in the middle of the range, with an equal number of instances of smaller and larger data points.

I only spent a few minutes searching online for the "mean number of miles driven by Americans," but rarely got any links that were not AVERAGES. Maybe a calculation that includes many millions of data points, all needing to be ranked in order to find the data point in the exact middle, is just too complex. Or maybe the sites didn't see the point.

I finally found one site that claimed, after applying standard deviations, that the mean number of miles driven by Americans is 12,494, or about 1,041 per month. The average is 14,263 per year or about 1,188 miles per month. Those two figures are not dramatically different, but adding 140 miles per month at $5 per gallon comes to $735 dollars of difference... and that is substantial.

I maintain that "typical" has to be the best number to refer to when we are reporting on almost anything that involves large numbers of people or businesses, as well as simply measuring dollars and cents and miles. 

Schools are full of extremes, and some individuals are far off the charts in terms of extreme choices, intellectual ability, home life, mental health, etc. Schools and governments tend to aggregate everything and arrive at averages to compare and contrast. If a school's average score on some standardized test goes down or up, we may be overdoing our sorrow or joy, respectively.

We just need to keep educating students that "average" is unlikely to look like them. Those average resemble them. 

Typical behavior is much more likely to help us in choosing topics and appealing to readers, particularly if we are most interested in reaching the widest audience.

Fighting bad court decisions with smarter laws

Some weeks are so loaded with news that we lose track of all the various implications and reactions. I suppose Ukrainians would appreciate top stories in American papers being about Russia bombing a shopping mall with a missile -- the very definition of a war crime and national terrorism.

But the January 6 committee hearings continue to be top of the fold, so to speak, along with primary elections and a giant baseball brawl and... well, the list goes on an on.

One of the Supreme Court decisions announced just a few days ago was Carson v. Makin, which seemed initially like a victory for private religious schools and their radical overseers. A 6-3 decision (and soon we will not need to see the actual votes anymore... that 6-3 is the new normal) held that the state had to provide funding for religious private schools as well as non-discriminatory private schools. The nation's CINOs howled in glee.

But the Maine legislature had already anticipated the court's extreme right wing swing and passed an amendment to the law in question that effectively creates an end run around the court.

From the Washington Post's commentary on this: 

The revised law forbids discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation, and it applies to every private school that chooses to accept public funds, without regard to religious affiliation.

The impact was significant: The two religious schools at issue in the Carson case, Bangor Christian Schools and Temple Academy, said that they would decline state funds if, as Maine’s new law requires, accepting such funds would require them to change how they operate or alter their “admissions standards” to admit L.G.B.T.Q. students.

What an elegant solution to the problem and such a clever argument against the CINO minority of America! The right wing parochial schools retain freedom of choice (nice irony) and must take ownership of their own choices (to discriminate against anyone they don't agree with). Private schools that follow state and federal laws are free to tap some of the state's education money for specific purposes.

Bottom line: Carson v Makin ends up being much ado about nothing, a Pyrrhic victory for the radical right that shines the spotlight on just how bigoted some private "Christian" schools really are. 

My personal reaction to the entire tussle was to admire state legislators who not only favor doing the right thing and serving the public without discrimination but also with the smarts to find a terrific strategy to get the job done.

This makes me a small person, I suppose, but I love seeing the CINOs squirm.   

Politics is a dirty business, and it always has been

Today is Primary Day for Colorado and that means we get treated to the latest bloviating from Rep. Lauren Boebert, who told a religious service this past Sunday that she is “tired” of the U.S. separation of church and state, a long-standing concept stemming only from a “stinking letter” penned by one of the Founding Fathers.

Of course, she skipped over that pesky First Amendment thing, but it's always been useful to pick and choose among your "sacred" documents, whether the Constitution or the Bible. 

This pseudo-campaign speech was literally preaching to the choir, with an audience of white CINO cheering every attack on what we used to think of as basic rights and democracy. 

Her primary opponent is Don Coram, who was co-sponsor of our state's updating of our student free expression law to include protections for advisers simply doing their job. He is smart and consistently works across the aisle on legislation that western Colorado needs. 

I assume he will get slaughtered. Reasonable is out of favor in the Republican Party.

Today also brings to an end the peculiar and expensive negative ads attacking a somewhat reasonable Joe O'Dea (who is what we might call Classic Republican) and urging voters to choose the wacko Ron Hanks, who embodies the Trumpist mentality in all its glory. The peculiar thing is that a PAC funded by Democrats is paying for those ads... and they have been everywhere.

The apparent strategy is to get Hanks nominated today and thereby pit Democratic incumbent Michael Bennett against a "weaker" candidate. Hah! I thought Trump would be easy to beat when he started his circus-atmosphere campaign seven years ago. By sheer bad (or good, depending on your perspective) luck, Trump was thumped in the popular vote but became president, a beneficiary of the peculiar American Electoral College. 

Something about this strategy just doesn't sit well. And once a wacko is on the ballot...

The deference to small, rural states and populations within states is yet another of the lingering problems that slavery, our original sin, continues to impose on us. The system was built as part of bringing southern slave states into the union, part of an unholy compromise that eventually led the nation to a civil war. 

Trump got three "originalists" on the Supreme Court, and the Republican radicals got everything they wanted without having to tick people off by drafting legislation to end abortion. After all, five members of the court are bought and paid for.

Trump may never regain any power, beyond his pop culture allure, but those court picks will torment the majority of Americans for decades to come. Now the country must hope for different luck, perhaps in a debilitating disease or sudden (and, of course, tragic) death of one or two of the current arch conservatives. But even having some court openings won't help if Dems don't control the Senate.

Trusting in luck is not a solid political strategy, just as it's not a great strategy in Vegas. 

Ruth Bader Ginsberg, for all her sterling qualities, must have really wanted to be on the court when our first female president was in office (ha!)... but her personal wishes backfired on us all when she refused to retire during Mr. Obama's second term, despite her long battles against cancer. 

More appalling was Senator McConnell pulling the most extreme power play in the history of our government by denying Merrick Garland even a hearing when he was nominated a full year before the 2016 election. Today McConnell brags about stacking the court as his supreme achievement in a long legislative career. Shameful.

Whatever the combination of luck, political machinations, and an imbalance of power in our Congress, particularly the Senate (California's two senators represent 39 million people, while North Dakota's two senators represent 770,000), we are stuck in a constant state of turmoil and anger. We are stuck with a Supreme Court that guarantees rule by the privileged minority of our citizens.

The one glimmer of good news is that those ugly and always deceptive TV ads will finally give way this evening, bringing back the barrage of Frank Azar law firm ads.

Ah, normalcy.

CINOs hijack religion to troll anyone "less worthy'

Today's Supreme Court brouhaha -- ruling that a Washington high school football coach could pray after games on the field -- is a great example of how things tend to escalate and how they eventually get a bit out of control.

The coach took a knee for a minute after games for years, evidently, until a few players started joining in and then opposing players and coaches and finally all sorts of loosely connected adults who basically just wanted to take on public schools and prayer.

And it eventually got to the Supreme Court, now noticeably open to almost any issues or cases that can troll Americans who don't fit a specific profile. In a sense, this is much ado about nothing, since the coach moved to Florida some time ago and isn't likely moving back to Bremerton. And it is fair to ask whether the informal praying on the field caused disruptions and hurt feelings.

But that's the thing. When the majority puts an official OK on one sort of religious belief, those who are made to feel uncomfortable or excluded tend to NOT protest loudly.

American politics currently suffers from the "tyranny of the minority," in that our system is rigged in favor of smaller states and more rural areas. But it is important to remember that the more common tyranny is of the majority. 

Today's boastful and proselytizing Christians feel free to scream loudly any time they feel the least uncomfortable. I am grateful that public school officials continue to resist particular religious practices being forced on students and their families. 

These public protestations of faith give me the willies. And the peculiar new tradition of using religion to poke at our neighbors is hardly a sterling advertisement for these oh-so-holy people. 

I saw the term CINO the other day -- Christian in Name Only -- based on the Republican in Name Only phrase that radical right wingers fling at anyone in their political party not sufficiently pure.

There's no good reason to even try to create arguments about religion, which is why I discourage students in my writing classes to even try in that area, much like the silliness of trying to convince people about abortion, trans sports participation, etc.

But I like the CINO approach generally. It's a good reminder that most humans don't really measure up to their professed values, and never will. I would guess most supposed Christians are picking and choosing among all sorts of values, some antithetical to what religious authorities desire.

I was thinking of all the celebration among Catholic bishops and their most radical adherents after Roe was overturned, while knowing that nearly 65 percent of Catholics in America support the basic protections of Roe. 

Then I thought of how, immediately after the "big win," so many "pro-life" fanatics began plotting to force EVERY American to give up personal autonomy. All while fighting with equal vigor for the rights of anyone to care any sort of weapon at all times. 

There is nothing logical about all these anti-abortion people being fine with unlimited guns and the death penalty... and allowing 25 percent of American children to go hungry. 

We are all hypocrites in some way, and I just wish knowing that would dampen our enthusiasm for fanatical ideas and our desire for just one way of life to prevail. But that would require self-reflection and a sense of shame... and many Americans can do neither.

Looking back on fifty years ago through rose-colored glasses

The early '70s sure seem like the "good old days."

Title IX was passed on June 23, 1972, finally providing some equality to opportunities for women in education, athletics, and other areas. Many high school athletic programs continue to dodge the law, but I saw a stat that every case of discrimination (violating some part of Title IX) is settled in favor of the complaining families or individuals showing that behavior.

The Roe v. Wade decision was announced in favor of a woman's right to an abortion on Jan. 22, 1973. Today the Supreme Court cemented its reputation as a politely radical arm of America's obsession with the past by overturning that ruling, which every justice proclaimed "settled law" during confirmation hearings.

And Richard Nixon resigned the presidency on Aug. 8, 1974, caught in shady doings and succumbing to the shame of being impeached had he not done so. Shame has become almost nonexistent in modern politics, and the January 6 hearings remind us of just how far the presidency has descended.

I know we are supposed to be working to uphold our institutions, from schools to churches to families, but it's tough to be proud of how our government works.

The presidency has become so debased that we are shocked when the executive branch is both efficient and effective, and many Americans see violence and disruptions if and when a former president goes to jail or is pardoned (a reminder of the Nixon debacle -- the bad guys with power and money always win).

The Supreme Court has lost all claim to "blind justice," now just a gaggle of radical Catholics -- sorry, but what else can we call them? -- intent on doing all they can to serve their Republican overlords. Thomas is married to a woman who consorted with traitors, if she is not one herself. Three other justices were handpicked by the felon Donald Trump to do exactly what they are doing. We were warned.

And the Congress rarely does anything at all, other than the occasional too little, too late legislation that can pass, like the recent bolstering of gun safety laws just passed by the Senate. At least six House members asked for pardons of the departing president, indicating that they knew they had crossed legal lines (though I'm sure they feel justified).

The future of gay marriage? Iffy. The future of interracial marriage? Who knows? 

Some sort of federal requirement for every American to carry an unregistered handgun? Unlikely. After all, the Republican Cult of the Gun certainly does not like the idea of every American who doesn't look like them carrying weapons and evening the odds. 

The early 1970s also featured passionate anti-war protests and violence, and that's only one portion of the "not so good" time period. But those events of five decades ago offer a sort of hope, albeit hope that must be patient because the U.S. is stuck in an age of constant argument and scrambling for power.

Perhaps our grandchildren will see the next big swing in our country's meandering journey to a "more perfect union."

For the rest of us? All we can do is make it as tough as we can for the bigots and ignorant and shameful to make a mockery of us all.

Distractions help us navigate the cascade of bad news

While scanning the Washington Post website today I came across this lead:

Thousands of people were convicted of practicing witchcraft in Scotland in a hunt that spanned nearly two centuries — and the majority of those sentenced to death and executed were women. Many were also tortured.

Now, a bill proposed in the Scottish parliament is trying to set the record straight, said Natalie Don, a Scottish lawmaker who introduced the proposal. It could allow for posthumous pardons to thousands of women who faced convictions hundreds of years ago.

On first sight, this seems like a weird issue to spend much time on. After all, those poor women were still tortured and executed... all for nothing, and nothing can reduce or recompence that pain and loss for their families. So why bother?

The story can be filed under "oddity," in terms of news values, but it's refreshing to read something that diverts me from January 6 and from the pandemic and from gun violence and from war in Ukraine -- all involving mostly bad news. 

I suppose the proposed bill is about justice and making some sort of statement about women being discriminated against... and there are still people who believe deeply in witches. It's harmless, as far as I can tell, and the distraction is worth it for many readers.

Another national story was about President Biden proposing that the federal gas task of about 18 cents per gallon be suspended for three months. Simple math points out that even if distributors deducted every one of those cents per gallon, the savings amounts to 3.6 percent on the current average per gallon price of $4.995.

Taken together, all those tax savings amount to a sizeable sum, but for any one driver? Not so much. But the government is looking frantically for almost anything that can be labelled "good news" for consumers.

Increased production and reduction of state gas taxes might eventually produce nearly $1 per gallon in savings, but the effect would take months to become clear.

The whole idea just doesn't seem like the game changer that can lead to more positive messages from Democrats about why they should be retained as elected officials. It's basically a distraction.

A third distraction is the brouhaha over a TV crew being inside a government building after hours, complete with a short time under arrest and the rather quick release of those involved. A puppet was involved. Radical wacko Jim Jordan of Ohio jumped on this tidbit and proclaimed Democratic hypocrisy, asking how this was any different from the Jan. 6 insurrectionists. Give me a break.

There is no "there" there, as the saying goes, but some media outlets are having a fine time with the story.

All three of these distracting news reports will soon fade away, surpassed by new oddities and misunderstandings and unapproved proposals. 

But the news can't be all crucial decisions and actions and policies. I will continue to scan for such coverage. I just need to remind myself that these sorts of reports don't need to take up much space in my brain.

I need some room for new revelations from the January 6 Committee hearing today. Great story telling.

No one thanks the person who reveals the 'man behind the curtain'

Another great post by Tom Nichols, an Atlantic columnist, came my way the other day, with the headline "What are Trump supporters so afraid of?" and that column was a way for me to recalibrate my thinking about the many Americans (some my relatives) who just can't break away from the Trump Cult.

Here's his key graf: 

I think the Trump superfans are terrified of being wrong. I suspect they know that for many years they’ve made a terrible mistake—that Trump and his coterie took them to the cleaners and the cognitive dissonance is now rising to ear-splitting, chest-constricting levels. And so they will literally threaten to kill people like Adam Kinzinger (among others) if that’s what it takes to silence the last feeble voice of reason inside themselves.

This made sense to me. Who wants to be forced to realize they have made a serious mistake and who wouldn't want to deflect the blame to someone else... anyone but them?

Fear has become the top motivator for most voters, maybe most PEOPLE, and perhaps across the planet. Fear of being show to be a fool has got to be powerful, and it seems normal that most people would try to avoid outright admitting that they were snookered.

"There's a sucker born every minute," said someone (not P.T. Barnum, though he is often associated with the memorable phrase). What we all want to do is brag about how smart and clever we are/were... not how silly, overmatched, and gullible we are/were.

Here's my idealistic hope: many people who are reluctant to publicly announce that they have been fooled for years but who are now confronted by all sorts of their political allies who can prove they WERE being fooled will cast their votes for someone other than those who played them for fools. The secrecy of the ballot box may allow reason and logic to return.

I know. I'm nutty just to imagine such a thing.

We have watched every minute of the January 6 Committee on the Capitol incursion hearings and both Kathleen and I have found them engrossing. It's like watching a trial without law enforcement involved and without a judge to oversee it all... everything is based on procedures the House of Representatives has developed over many years.

The mix of live witnesses and video clips and narratives from individual House members on the panel move things along and have been brilliantly organized to create cohesive arguments. At this point, anyone who continues to cheer for Trump has made a clear choice to remain ignorant and to deny reality, and I still think most Americans are not that far gone. 

Ignorance and refusal to face reality can't be legislated against, and there have always been plenty of wackos in this country entertaining the most far-fetched ideas. Those people will never go away. But if we can just pry a few people away from the cult around the edges...

I could be proven wrong and all the cynicism people expressed about the committee hearings may turn out to be accurate, with nothing being done, but the hearings at least qualify as a manageable history of Jan. 6, 2021, and what led to the insurrection and what might be coming.

After all, a large percentage of Republicans still cling to the weird belief that the 2020 election was rigged in some way and that Trump got cheated. At least, that is what they say out loud.

Of course, the opposite is true. Trump and his cronies are the cheaters, the liars, the thieves, and the traitors. That last one is a stretch, perhaps, but what else can you call a person who tries to disrupt the Constitution and the peaceful exchange of power?

Lock him up! 

What's $3 trillion among friends?

We are traveling to the Pacific Northwest and dramatically cooler temperatures for a few days, so I will be taking a few days off from my M-F blog. The world will be fine.

The stock market is tumbling again as I type, though I have no idea exactly why it is dropping... just as I had little idea of why it went up so much over the past year or so. We have some money in the market, mostly through TIAA, and I know it's not healthy to watch the numbers each day.

Nevertheless, it's disconcerting to know that, for instance, a 529 account we have for our oldest grandchild has plunged in value by over 20 percent since the start of the year. The total is small potatoes in the big picture but small potatoes is where we are.

I see that about $3 trillion in retirement savings have been wiped out this year alone, and simply wonder where that money went. I suspect it was never there, since the entire system is based on faith and promises, but that's a lot of potential money that is not available..

The biggest surprise is that everyone is so upset by the chaos and the inflation and the supply chain issues and corporate greed. Between the pandemic and a shooting war and all the traditional American problems, from racism to sexism to guns, wouldn't the real surprise be if financial markets continued to grow?

I read all the time that the stock market has little connection to the overall economy and that may be true... but since I never really understood the entire enterprise, I will have to take some "experts'" opinions on this.

Things "feel" weird in America and across the globe right now, and that weird feeling looks like it will be sticking around for some time. 

The ultra rich will continue to accumulate more and more wealth and everyone else will struggle or at least feel uneasy. Everyone else fixates on gas prices and eye-popping airfare. Oh, and the price of basic food and shelter.

No wonder everyone predicts that Republicans will have a field day this coming November. When things aren't going well on any number of fronts, it's rational for voters to simply "throw the bastards out" in favor of some new bastards. The country seems to do this quite regularly.

Voting, for many, boils down to employing what small amount of power an individual holds in this vast, complex world. Punishing people who just happen to be in office when things bother us the most? It may have no effect but there is a short rush of exhilaration in simply saying "no," loudly and clearly.

Of course, for every voter who wants to take frustrations over high gas prices out on whoever is in office, there is another voter who can't stand some cultural or personal issue, like tossing Roe v Wade or being forced to tolerate a Supreme Court justice whose wife is a traitor to democracy. 

I also know that things need to get very bad indeed for fundamental change to occur. If so, maybe there's some comfort in knowing that we haven't reached bottom in terms of political and cultural battles.

Might as well enjoy the ride.

Time marches on... or perhaps that's an illusion

The spotlight moves on, inexorably, particularly when a lot of our news outlets abandon local news and many Americans turn to social media for their information.

I read today that Ukraine is suffering nearly 20,000 casualties per MONTH in the ongoing war, and I assume Russia is looking at similar numbers, if not more. That war rages, but there is always something that will draw attention away.

This week it's a combination of the January 6 Committee hearings along with very hot weather across much of the U.S. that we find leading news reports. Then there are crashing stock markets and the continuing pandemic and some 31 right wing wackos were arrested in Idaho, packed in the back of a U-Haul, before they could disrupt an annual Pride parade.

It may be happenstance, but we started watching a four-part series on PBS called "Ridley Road." It takes place in 1962 and focuses on openly Nazi party members complaining about Jews and minorities taking their jobs and crowding out their space and generally causing all that is wrong in their lives. London is the main setting and the story is loosely based on real events from the time... but I kept thinking what I often think: "Nothing really changes."

That the events took place 17 years after WWII ended, after Britain suffered years of bombings and so many deaths at the hands of the Nazi Party in Germany, is shocking. That we are hearing the very same grievances and blaming and threats today is even more shocking to someone who has assumed that the world was moving, fitfully, away from such movements. How naïve of me.

Yesterday was the 50th anniversary of the Watergate burglary, an event that shook the nation (eventually) and brought down a presidency. That amateurish break-in seems positively like a "golden age" compared with the current crimes being committed today by assorted politicians, petty crooks, and newly created ultra-rich people around the globe.

Students don't study history very well, mostly because we have enlarged the scope of history classes to social studies courses... and there has not only been more history added to the database, but now teachers must cover so much more within the same basic number of hours. 

Here in Colorado the department of education is working to issue revised social studies standards for public schools, and the current draft runs nearly 200 pages. Committee members involved in final revisions are busy redlining mentions of LGBTQ+ issues, reportedly. 

Amazingly, the process is increasingly political, with the rabid right trying to hold the line, so to speak, on mentions of events, groups, and movements that they are not comfortable with. I know this politization is not really "amazing," of course, as nearly everything becomes enmeshed in our divided country and world's conflicts.

But if I narrow my focus a bit, and look around at my neighborhood, things seem fine. People smile and wave and no one is waving banners or weapons. The big news on my block is that all the units are being repainted and the crews are swarming buildings, taping and spraying and brushing, while scrambling up long ladders that don't look all that sturdy.

Kathleen and I often remark as we walk around the area that the homes with new paint don't really look much different from how they looked before the new coat was applied. Maybe if we looked much more closely or had created some sort of documentation showing how the last paint job had faded, we would be more impressed.

But, mostly, I think: "Nothing really changes."

Those Hollywood liberals are addicted to gun violence

I have a love-hate relationship with Bill Maher and his ego-driven, often intentionally provocative, and always a bit vulgar comedy, but I keep watching "Real Time" each Friday night -- so he must be doing something right.

What rarely disappoints is the "new rules" segment that closes each show, and last Friday he took on the hypocrisy of supposably "woke" Hollywood movies and their infatuation with gun violence, particularly when it is driven by revenge.

His staff put together some montages bursting with horrific shootings, showcasing special effects, but also highlighting the fact that even if we could rein in gun violence somehow, we are all awash in violent images. Many of the "heroes" of our most violent films and TV are out for vengeance, and Maher pointed out that vengeance seems to provide a convenient exception to society's norms.

He also pointed out that popular culture is one of the factors behind America's orgy of gun violence, though exactly what percentage it accounts for is unclear. The sheer number of available guns is certainly a large factor, but what about those images on the screen? I can certainly imagine young men being fascinated with the power and violence and justice meted out by everyone from Bruce Willis to Jack Reacher to Liam Neeson. 

The "good guys" get shot from time to time, but seem to overcome their wounds quickly, like the knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail being slowing hacked to death by Arthur. "It's just a flesh wound."

Bad guys die in gory dozens.

For me, much of the violence I see falls into the category of cartoon, and I hope I can differentiate fantasy from reality. I'm not so sure of some younger males.

And it's not like humans haven't been fascinated by violence for, well, ever. Shakespeare plays feature horrific violence in many places, but it all happens off-stage. I assume old Bill would have added realistic on-stage violence had he the special effects available, but he didn't. Sophocles didn't back away from characters murdering parents and children and blinding themselves. Off-stage violence seems quaint now, and the difference between hearing about a shooting and actually seeing heads explode seems important.

Maher made me a bit depressed at first. After all, if pop culture is awash with guns and violence of all kinds, how can we ever be optimistic that things will change? 

But then I thought about smoking and how a strong and steady campaign, along with significant law suits against tobacco companies, has reduced the amount of smoking we see on TV and in movies. I know smoking is not a Constitutional right, but I don't read about radicals demanding their right to see smoking in their media.

Of course, addicts over a certain age can continue their "slow suicide" smoking activities, much like those stubborn motorcyclists who don't wear helmets. The thrills and comfort cancel out brain damage or lung cancer as motivators to behave differently. FREEDOM!

Once again: change happens slowly and then all at once. Some basic additions to the nation's gun safety laws look to be happening this summer. 

Tobacco use has fallen from over 44 percent of American adults in 1965 to near 13 percent today. Helmet use has gone up to 67 percent from very low use 50 years ago and more.

That still leaves a stunning number of adults purposely self-harming, but there is progress.

And so we stumble on.

 

Taking some good news wherever I can find it

The news always tends to elevate "bad news," as I have often mentioned in this blog. Some of the bad news is based on speculation and fear of the unknown, and some is clearly and objectively bad (see children slaughtered, Ukrainians butchered, etc.).

But there is news of legislation in the U.S. Senate that might nibble a bit at the issue of gun safety, and (shock!) it appears at least ten Republican senators are on board. It won't be enough, but it's a step forward, should it pass. 

The NRA and the rest of the American cult of the gun resists ANY compromise. They are afraid of anything being done to improve gun laws in the country, and those of us NOT in the cult should pay attention to what our opponents fear. They fear that one reform will lead to another reform.

They are right to fear the "slippery slope" that can result from even a small change, IMHO. Rational Americans should embrace this, and then continue organizing and arguing for even more important safety measures. 

The Jan. 6 hearings featured day 2 testimony, and the former president again comes off as ignoring facts and logic and the best advice of those around him. No, many Americans will remain blissfully unaware of this, but perhaps a few, just around the edges, can still be persuaded.

That at least allows for the possibility of change in future votes, and I am taking my victories when I can find them, no matter how vague and minor they may be.

On a personal level, the four-week summer course I taught for CSU ended Sunday at midnight, so all I need to do is assess the 25 final papers, listen to the final 25 video presentations, and upload grades. That must be a clear victory, right?

But at least five of the students have begged for me to reopen the last two assignments. One student moaned that he missed the midnight deadline by one hour... plus he claimed to be proud of his work... oh, and he wants to graduate in a few weeks. That was my favorite plea, with most simply being some version of "I ran out of time" and "I throw myself on the mercy of the instructor."

Unsurprisingly, I reopened the assignments, and sent an Announcement to all students that I did that. There will be some penalty points deducted from late work and I always reason that I prefer to assess based on what students DO rather than what they don't do... though I know being late for work at some point leads to being fired. 

Or perhaps I just don't care enough (or believe deeply enough) in the Sunday night deadlines. After all, why not have the deadline be something like Monday by 7 a.m.? I will not jump into grading after midnight, preferring to sleep. So a few more hours to accommodate night owls doesn't affect me at all. Those midnight deadlines seem the definition of arbitrary.

I did not create the course, and all of us teaching various sections have been instructed to NOT make major changes in anything on the Canvas course, including adding writing assignments or adjusting the grading scale. 

This writing class features two exams, midterm and final, accounting for 200 of the 850 total points. They are multiple choice and the system even grades the exams. That is not something I would advocate for. I prefer actual writing assignments being the overwhelming evidence in proving writing skill. But that's not my call.

I just cash the giant checks.

For educators, ignorance is the enemy

Today's weekly blog from David French, columnist for The Atlantic, begins with this observation: he asked his neighbor, a Trump voter in Tennessee who is one of the kindest people he has ever met, about what he thought of Trump’s lies. “What do you mean?” he responded, in all sincerity. He genuinely did not perceive Trump as dishonest. Even now. In 2022.

He made two observations that seem timely, considering last night's prime time Jan. 6 Committee hearing and what we might expect to result from the story being shared so publicly.

The key observation is that many Republicans simply have never heard of many of Trump's worst excesses and transgressions. Many only watch right wing TV and listen to right wing radio (along with the closed societies social media have produced) and they honestly have never seen or heard much about anything except how horrible Democrats are.

The old saying, "Garbage in, garbage out," that computer programmers repeat seems to apply to our "media silo" culture. If many of our Republican neighbors never watch CBS news or even CNN, and only see Facebook posts from radical crackpots (and Russian bots), we have to think of them more as merely ignorant than actively evil.

I'm sure there's some percentage of Americans who support Trump precisely because he is a jerk who trolls people and institutions they hate endlessly. They will vote for him BECAUSE he is a liar and thief.

But I have to assume those people are not the majority of Americans (or we would have to declare our 250-year experiment with democracy over).

There is a famous Isaac Asimov quote: “There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”

Asimov was a prolific sci-fi writer and an insightful observer of society, but his quote remains popular today because we are reminded of its truth constantly.

Some ignorance grows from stubborn refusal to widen research and sources. Most Republicans will never go beyond that. After all, they have chosen their tribe and other voices are quickly branded as dishonest and corrupt. Dems are equally suspect.

But there must be some who are ignorant mostly through their default: "I only watch Fox News because that's what I have been doing for many years. The news is the news, isn't it?"

And may people have another default: if it's on TV or in a paper or magazine or on a website or social media post, there must be some truth to it. If you only consume one section of what the wider media offers, you have not done your research.

But most people don't have the energy, time, or inclination to go beyond initial research -- sort of like stopping with Wikipedia as your source, putting everything into one resource.

The summer four-week session wraps up Sunday night and the final reports required of my CSU students require them to examine issues or initiatives or problems with at least two defensible positions. They can certainly choose one option over another, but they must demonstrate that they at least understand the "other."

In my own media consumption, I can't stand to watch Fox News, preferring to maintain a healthy blood pressure level. I have gotten off Twitter to avoid the worst of the Internet cesspool. 

I assume some well-meaning Republicans have the same sort of revulsion to CBS or ABC. They didn't flip to any mainstream channels last night to learn about what the Jan. 6 Committee was reporting out.

Fox News just ignored it all. Had they shown the hearing, viewers would likely have been surprised and started asking questions about all these lies and plots that a Republican congressperson clearly laid out.

Questions can lead to change. We can't have that.

Some Americans will hedge and deflect, but they accept shooting random children

Here are two stats in today's Washington Post, under the national Politics tab on their site: in 1964,  Americans gave the federal government a positive rating of 77 percent. Since then, public trust has fallen to a disturbing 20 percent.

Another poll finds that 70 percent of registered Republicans favor protecting gun rights over reducing violence. Dig in a bit further and we see a disturbing 44 percent of Republicans say that school shootings and over 40,000 gun deaths annually as the "price of freedom."

I don't have all the raw data but the results seem completely logical. If a person has little to no trust in authorities, even schools and local government, it makes sense to cling to the myth of gun ownership as a key means of protection for them and their families.

There is not a shred of evidence for that view, of course, and lots of data that argues the complete opposite -- does anyone not firmly in the gun cult not believe that if ALL guns were removed from civilian hands our country would be safer? It would be radical to suggest such a thing, and no politician stands a chance with either party if they campaign on simply confiscating all handguns and semi-automatic rifles. 

Heck, even Dems lead off their comments on gun safety with anecdotes about dad teaching them to shoot at targets and about friends and family who enjoy hunting. "We don't want to take your guns... we just want to tinker with some timing and availability and training requirements."

If only 20 percent of Americans trust the government, that means the mistrust goes far beyond politics. It leads to a level of cynicism that precludes hope, welcomes disruption, and encourages despair. 

My guess is that lots of people worship Trump, for instance, because he entertains them in a twisted way while reinforcing their views that it just doesn't matter who is in charge of things. 

After all, for millions of Americans, life is just not great and they feel on their own. It wasn't great under Obama. It didn't change much under Trump. It is the same old under Biden. It will be same under DeSantos or whatever autocrat takes over. Does that sound too cynical?

The group I mistrust is rich people... and I mean "really" rich people. You know, the ones who own and buy and mislead and get elected to public positions at all levels. The ones who make record profits as they quickly raise prices and offer fewer services and less quality. The ones who greedily grab even more, with no limits.

The third stat that pertains here is the one that reminds us that only the rich can afford to run for most political offices. It doesn't matter what political party. Rich people get to play the game. The rest of us just watch, helpless.

And it's not just politics that gets twisted.

The Broncos are now about to be owned by a son of the founder of Wal-Mart, and he is reportedly worth over $70 billion. His group will pay over $4.5 billion for the team. I assume their business plan is NOT to lose money, so this is not just an expensive hobby.

If you want to watch the Avs or the Nuggets on TV in the Denver area, it's not easy. Another billionaire owner has been feuding with Xfinity and others for over two years about rights to broadcast. Sometimes you can catch the teams on TBS or ESPN. The Nuggets set the record for lowest audience share among all NBA teams, all-time, mostly because most people had to go to a bar to see a game.

The team we CAN watch is the Rockies, and many are not excited about spending a few hours most days with a mediocre, and sometimes comical, team. They are also owned by a multi-millionaire who could care less about fans... beyond getting them in the ball park to pay high prices for everything from admission to Dip-n-dots. 

Seats for the Avalanche hockey finals home games are going for as much as $10,000. The same will be true for the baseball All-Star game in LA next month. 

The amazing thing is that the millions upon millions who couldn't even imagine paying ten grad for a couple hours of entertainment continue to pay their taxes and vote for their politician overlords and generally follow the "rules." 

Some are so turned off that the rules don't apply anymore. We can watch some of them tonight during the House hearings on prime time as we relive what we watched on live TV about 16 months ago.

Insurrections are a fine spectacle, but they can't rival an NFL home game.

Still, I will be watching.

More analytical readings of great paragraphs

You really should consider subscribing to Frank Bruni's weekly blog, as there are so many great examples and insights and links each time. Here are just three from this week's "For the love of sentences" section. In an essay in The Atlantic, Clint Smith pondered sending his soon-to-be kindergartener off to school in these blood-soaked times:

 

I picked up my phone and began scrolling through photos of my son from the day he was born, almost five years ago, his pink-brown body awash with wrinkles and wonder. I kept scrolling and saw photographs of him in the crib where he slept (and too often did not sleep); photographs of him chasing a flock of birds in the park, his arms raised as he toddled toward them with breathtaking inelegance; photographs of him after he had applesauce for the first time, his eyes gleaming, his smile as wide as the sky, his lips covered in a chaos of golden mush.

There are two sentences in this graf, not one, but that second one is an example of control of language that students can benefit from studying. First, it's 72 words, which most would consider tough for both writers and readers, but there is a clear structure, with three connected parts, marked by semicolons. 

Repetition of  "photographs" keeps readers anchored on the visual anchor of the sentence: the five-year-old photos on his phone, but there are parentheticals inserted as part of each section, one in parentheses and the others set off by commas. 

An "over-packed" sentence like this connotes to the reader that the writer is so overwhelmed with many memories and emotions that there is little time to take a breath or slow down. Everything is washing over the writer and the sentence reflects that. 

BTW: this sort of complex syntax may not be for those who are still hazy on simple sentences, but if we want to expand our students' range of syntax choices, creating an assignment that forces them to duplicate the basic structure, but with their own series of observations, can open up some options for them. I would argue that a fair measure of how sophisticated a student's thinking and writing is can be gauged by their ability to control this sort of complex sentence.

Humor in an obituary may be considered questionable, but most of us have experienced occasions where funerals or wakes have supported all sorts of funny stories and huge laughs from those attending. In the case of someone who passes away at age 96, there is less a sense of tragedy than celebration.

From The New York Times, in the final sentence of an obituary for the “pickle mogul” Robert Vlasic, Clay Risen wrote this about Vlasic’s philanthropic activity: “It was, his son said, the sort of work he relished.” 

To place that pun at the very end of the obit elevates that sense of fun and appreciation. It's the last word, so to speak. That is a good model to remind students that word order (another part of syntax) can create different takeaways, different emotions.

We saw "Top Gun: Maverick" last week, as did millions of others. Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker recalled the time she met Tom Cruise at the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner in 2006: 

Taking my hand in his, he hit the high beams on those piercing, blue-green eyes, singeing my eyeballs with — I’m certain of it — the recognition that he had finally found his one true love. I have no idea what he said. Then he was off to charm his next victim, and the next. That’s star power.

Many critics are describing Cruise as our last true movie star, and this quick description explores how that might come about. It is difficult to describe magnetism... most of us tend to just "tell" about feeling drawn to something or someone. 

But there the writer attempts to replicate a moment from six years ago and focuses on the effect of Cruise's eyes... and the feeling that, for a moment, they were separate from the rest of the world. 

There is a mishmash of images in that first sentence, from a automobile headlight metaphor to metaphorical burning of her own eyes... followed by the self-deprecating and fleeting idea that there was something special there. 

I would again point out to students the effect of that sudden and very short final sentence: "That's star power." A writer's trick is to look for ways to make our most important points in shorter sentences. 

It's about the rhythm.

Diction choices carry emotional and even political weight

From yesterday's Frank Bruni blog:  

Do such endlessly, reflexively repeated phrases as “school shooting,” “mass shooting,” “active shooter” and “gunman” shortchange the horror of the circumstances and become some ignorable admixture of white noise and crime-procedural cant?

My worry about that is why, earlier in this newsletter, I used “blood bath,” “massacre,” “slaughtered.”

Ugly truths call for ugly terms.

I have used "murderer" and "rabid," among other terms, to describe the killer. Journalists often opt for terms a bit less emotionally charged. It's part of the effort to remain as objective and rational as they can. 

But the truth is that SOMEONE will be upset (or pretend to be) whatever sort of diction is chosen. Gun fans will object to the uglier language, in the same way they routinely claim "this is not the time for politics." Gun safety fans will find the more florid diction to be more realistic and more truthful.

This little debate over what sort of language to use when reporting on horrific events is related to new debate over whether the public needs to see the dead children, horribly mutilated... to the point where identification of some victims was not easy.

Would it make a difference if the public could see what gun shots do to actual, innocent humans? I am not sure, which is enough to make me a little depressed.

Once at least some percentage of the population is OK with shrugging off such massacres as routine and unavoidable in a "free" society, are gruesome images going to change any minds?

Our national obsession with guns and insane arguments over a Constitutional amendment that most certainly could not have anticipated numerous and powerful weapons in the hundreds of millions continues.

If there is any good news, schools are closing for the summer. 

Those buildings are no longer "target rich."

Soon, the national consciousness will move along.

National news inventory does not inspire confidence in our future

Today's various news stories reminded me that there couldn't be many people who can keep track of all the "news" that inundates us (if we let it).

Here's a quick selection of national items, by way of illustration, in case we wanted to check back into events after a weekend;

• President Biden invoked the Defense Production Act to boost the domestic production of solar panels and their parts in an effort to shift the country toward clean energy. In 2020, 89% of the solar panels used in the U.S. were imported. 
• The President is expected to decide in July or August whether to partially forgive student-loan debt for 40 million borrowers who owe about $1.6 trillion. 
• The U.S. has wasted 82.1 million Covid-19 vaccine doses – just over 11% of the doses the federal government distributed. CVS and Walmart were responsible for over a quarter of the doses thrown away. 
• The Justice Department charged the former top leader of the Proud Boys extremist group and four other members with seditious conspiracy for their role in the Jan. 6 insurrection. 
• The House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection of the Capitol will host its first televised hearing Thursday at 8 p.m. Eastern. After more than 100 subpoenas, 1,000 interviews, and 100,000 documents, the committee said it plans to present evidence from its 10-month investigation that show a deliberate, coordinated effort by Trump and his associates to delay certification of Biden’s 2020 presidential election, and how that led to the violence at the Capitol. At least six hearings are planned, two of them in prime time.
• 45% of Americans say Trump is solely or mainly responsible for the riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6, while 55% say Trump is only somewhat or not really responsible. 
• 83% of Americans described the state of the economy as poor or not so good. 35% said they aren’t satisfied at all with their financial situation. 
• 37% of Americans approve of Biden’s handling of the economy. 80% say that inflation is also an important factor in how they will vote this November. 
• 44% of Republican respondents said deadly mass shootings in the U.S. are something that must be accepted as part of a “free society.” 85% of Democrats and 73% of Independents, meanwhile, said mass shootings are “something we can prevent and stop if we really tried.” 

If you can't find something there that raised your anxiety level or your general angst over life, you just aren't trying.

I found the report on the wasted vaccines to be troubling, when about 13 percent of Americans over 65 have not been fully vaccinated. I also am simply outraged to learn that a significant number of my fellow citizens are willing to accept continued mass shootings as a basic "cost of doing business" for the U.S. 

I also found myself trying to imagine how I would react to most of this news were I President Biden... and I would be inclined to tell the nation we are on our own. Who needs a job so thankless while simultaneously so complex? 

We are rapidly becoming ungovernable, except at the most local levels as it gets tough to even type United States of America without cringing.

Contrast that with the fact that today is the 78th anniversary of D-Day. That should help us gauge just how badly we have fractured as a nation.

S.O.S.

'Baseball is 90% mental and the other half is physical.' --Yogi Berra

Baseball is a puzzling and challenging sport, as I was reminded in the last couple days. The Rockies split a doubleheader on Wednesday with Miami, losing 14-1 and then winning 13-12. Yesterday they were blasted by Atlanta, 13-6. It's a long season, as they say, but those three games saw opponents AVERAGE 13 runs. 

Pitchers have their ups and downs, even the best of them, and so do hitters, but the last couple days have been distressing for any Colorado fan. One of the most effective innings of pitching for the poor Rox came on Wednesday, with an outfielder getting three quick outs while throwing 70 miles per hour max. 

Yesterday's starter gave up 9 runs in five innings and I don't think I'm exaggerating to claim that allowing opponents to hit off a tee might have produced fewer runs. 

I have never been a fan of the 1-0 pitchers' dual, and certainly enjoy lots of action in a sport that can test our patience, waiting for SOMETHING to happen. But there must be some happy medium, between an almost complete lack of offense and football-size scores.

Coors Field is a gigantic stadium, built to keep the ball in the park most of the time, but that huge outfield means there is a lot of space for almost any ball hit out of the infield to find somewhere safe to land.

But what can we say about the Rockies "boasting" more errors than any other team in the league? 

Everyone on the field is making big money and every player has qualified to be one of the very small percentage of the population to play pro baseball over the past 100-plus years. But I have seen throwing errors this year that would be normal in Little League games. One of those errors was a comical overthrow by Brendan Rogers during a run-down... a situation 9-year-olds practice for. In the next game, Rogers hit three homeruns, including a walk-off two-run last to win the second game of the twin bill. Goat? Hero? Who knows?

Add in the fact that the Rockies are in the toughest division in the National League and that they traded away the two best players on the team in two consecutive years (Nolan Arenado and Trevor Story) and that the pitching overall is dead last in most categories... and it's tough to be a fan. 

Thank goodness the ownership is unveiling unusual new uniforms tomorrow, though many compare them to state license plates in colors and design. THAT should boost enthusiasm!

On the other hand, it would not be all that surprising to have the team edge the Braves tonight by a 2-1 score. Each contest is unique and everyone starts even with each game. Even the worst major league teams can win 70-80 games out of 162. Even the best lose about 60 games.

Few sports rival baseball for such a small margin between great success and last place, and no other sports demand 162 games to simply complete the regular season. I assume the Rockies will shrug off the last couple days... even the shell-shocked pitching staff.

No, we aren't going to the playoffs, again, but there will still be opportunities for fun, game by game, even inning by inning. Even lousy teams include some terrific, talented players, and professionals don't just "give up" and stop playing. 

The Rockies remind me of the Cubs of my youth, who I following no matter what, idolizing players like Ernie Banks and Billy Williams and Ferguson Jenkins. They would never win their division and rarely even had a winning record, but they were MY team. BTW: I also regularly attended Iowa football games from 1962-1978, a total of 17 consecutive seasons. In other words, rooting for losers and underdogs is in my blood. I have been doing that since 7th grade.

Baseball teaches humility. That is probably part of its diminishing appeal among fans.

America is not a naturally humble place.

Interesting arguments grow from strong proposals

Here is a great example of a provocative proposal, from Isabel Fattal, writer for The Atlantic:

The children and parents of our country need to take the summer to organize locally, build a set of national demands, and then refuse to go back to school in the fall until Congress does something.

I like the structure of this argument, starting with her use of the "magic of three" examples or items. Organize. Build. Refuse. A professional writer won't make errors in parallel structure, I suppose, but it's still nice to see the verbs in the same tense. 

At its heart, the proposal is a cause and effect argument, with built-in assumptions (or warrants, in rhetoric) that readers are expected to understand. The key warrant is in the reader realizing that if enough students refuse to take part in something, there is very little a school can do... and if their parents support them, there is nothing that can be done.

I used to point out to my own high school students that if they wanted to see if they could really make a difference, or if they simply wanted to confirm that they possess SOME power, they could organize a school-wide walkout. 

Imagine everyone simply standing up and leaving classrooms and heading out into some beautiful sunshine behind the school, and students refusing to return to the classroom. Yes, teachers and administrators might holler and threaten, but if everyone stands strong, what can school authorities do?

I used this as a way to discuss how important the "consent of the governed" concept is in how a society works. A good example is how most Americans have abandoned wearing masks, even in tight spaces, and have simply declared the pandemic an endemic... and are moving on. Hospitalizations are going up, but no one cares. Deaths continue but no one cares.

I see all sorts of polls and surveys indicating that large majorities of Americans favor all sorts of gun safety laws and regulations, but our political gridlock and lack of leadership have prevented those sentiments from becoming law. 

Ms. Fattel's proposal is the sort of dramatic action that might move the needle, however unlikely it is that a nationwide walkout by students might be.

But when a silly Tik-Tok challenge went viral, every high school kid in the country at least knew about it, and many blockheads decided to vandalize school property. It didn't last long, but every adult in the country was suddenly talking about this newish social media platform and bemoaning the immaturity of our children.

If enough people decide to avoid some particular store or brand due to policies they disagree with, we would guess that the boycotted stores and brands would soon find some new policies. 

Of course, the problem in organizing and motivating common citizens to do anything in a large group and over time is that we are so fragmented... and one strategy of politicians and the government and business in general is to minimize the chances that large numbers of citizens will work in concert for change.

BTW, I do recognize the weakness at the end of Fattal's proposal: "something" is quite vague and sounds more desperate than strong. 

But what if that "something" were to raise the age for gun purchases nationally to 21 (I would prefer 25)? We "pick on" young people all the time, with legislators having little problem with tobacco being limited to over 21, for instance, or marijuana and liquor being the same. 

We used to argue that if an 18-year-old could be drafted and fight in Vietnam, certainly he should be able to buy a beer. But the draft is old news.

Time to pick on 18-21 year olds once again, for their own good and for ours. Will it end America's idolization of guns? No. \

But it would be "something."

The price of freedom: dead kids and dead old people

I just read an article in today's Washington Post seriously exploring whether children should have cell phones in school, and how they MIGHT be dangerous (one expert said even vibrations could give a kid's location away to a shooter), as well as all the traditional worries about the cesspool of the Internet.

Another section of the site was reporting on how one child in Uvalde dialed 911 on the phone of his murdered teacher. Of course, no one jumped to his rescue, as it turns out, but at least the child could connect to a human being as a madman raged nearby.

This sort of reporting is defensible since every angle of the horrible massacre deserves to be explored, and those 911 calls that continued for over an hour following the murderer's invasion of a fourth-grade classroom continue to be (maybe?) the most frustrating and horrifying image Americans now have of that terrible day.

It's all a distraction from what a reasonable person would label as the key problem: so many guns. The media, to its shame, can't keep its focus on the problem and neither can politicians, parents, educators, or anyone else. 

Let's talk phones and doors... anything to get our minds off the slaughter of innocents.

I saw a provocative post on social media yesterday that boiled down to a parable about a school that experienced an attack by a guy with a hammer. The response from those in command? Give every kid a hammer, thus solving the problem. I didn't do the parable justice, but you get the idea.

When it comes to Republicans and their false idol of guns, you just cant' fix stupid. I know we are not supposed to vilify our neighbors and relatives and fellow citizens, calling them evil or stupid or dupes... but at some point reality must be recognized.

A columnist likened America's willingness to see thousands of gun deaths each month as a fair exchange for mythical Second Amendment rights to the nation practicing human sacrifice.

In many historical instances, human sacrifice made a bargain with the gods: we will give you this ONE individual so that the many can prosper, or the rains will come, or the war will be won. The minority of gun worshippers in the U.S. have made a similar calculation, subbing in "freedom" for prosperity, rain, and victory. 

Worship of the gun overwhelms most of the good will and kindness that most humans share. Just as the anti-abortion fanatics fixate on one issue, we have Americans who combine two fixations: anti-abortion and the right to guns. The fact that those two positions seem logically opposed to one another, with the first advocating for births over all other factors and the latter position OK with death-dealing weapons in everyone's hands, makes no impact on the radical right.

Many radical Americans dislike teachers while simultaneously seeming to trust them with guns in the schools. They don't trust any authorities beyond the false prophets who spew hate and fear online and on cable. I see that nearly 25 percent of Americans over 65 either have not been vaccinated or have only had one shot... and they die at rates many times higher than other age groups. 

Those deaths are not suicides, technically, but all those needless deaths seem like the result of a choice.

Some percentage of those vaccine refusers over 65 will proclaim that God will protect them, or that their fate is in his hands. This is religion at its worst, and the logic leads to (somehow) God being willing to allow children to be horribly mutilated by high-speed bullets... so who are we to interfere?

Nothing can be done to stem the number of shootings. Nothing can be done to save the lives of the elderly. Except in most other countries on the planet.

So it goes.